This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See, for example, the following: Paul Forman, “Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3, 1–117 (1971); Arthur I. Miller, Einstein, Picasso: space, time and the beauty that causes havoc (Basic Books, New York c2001); Mara Beller, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1999)
See especially Thomas S. Kuhn, Blackbody Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912. With a New Afterward (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1987. First pub., Oxford University Press, 1978), and the many reactions to this book in the form of reviews and symposia.
Useful technical summaries of the early papers of quantum mechanics are given by Max Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill, New York 1966). Extracts of the crucial parts of many of these papers are available in English translation in Ian Duck and E.C.G. Sudarshan, 100 Years of Planck’s Quantum (World Scientific, Singapore 2000). For a recent narrative history see Helge Krage, Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1999).
John L. Helibron, “Fin-de-siècle physics,” in C.G. Bernard et al., eds, Science, Technology and Society in the Time of Alfred Nobel (Pergamnon Press, Oxford 1982) pp 51–73
Walter Moore, Schrödinger: Life and Thought (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989) p 192
Schrödinger’s papers, which are still wonderful to read today, are available in English translation in E. Schrödinger, Collected Papers on Wave Mechanics (Blackie & Son, London and Glasgow 1928)
J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (1932), trans. by R.T. Bayer, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1955)
This remark is often attributed to Richard Feynman, but no one has produced any evidence that he actually said it. This characterization of the Copenhagen attitude seems in fact to be due to David Mermin, “Reference Frame: What’s Wrong with this Pillow?” Physics Today bf 42, no. 4, 9–11 (April 1989). Mermin sees the frequent attribution of the remark to Feynman as an example of Robert Merton’s Matthew effect: see David Mermin, “Reference Frame: Could Feynman Have Said This?” Physics Today 57, no. 5, 10–11 (May, 2004).
E. Schrödinger, “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik,” Die Naturwissenschaften 23, 807–812, 824–828, 844–849 (1935). English translation in J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, eds, Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1983), 152–167. For a helpful introduction to entanglement see Barbara M. Terhal, Michael M. Wolf and Andrew C. Doherty, “Quantum Entanglement: A Modern Perspective,” Physics Today 56, no. 4, 46–52 (April 2003).
Jonathan R. Friedman, Vijay Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo, J. E. Lukens, “Quantum superposition of distinct macroscopic states,” Nature 406, 43–46 (2000)
Brian Julsgaard, Alexander Kozhekin, Eugene S. Polzik, “Experimental long-lived entanglement of two macroscopic objects,” Nature 413, 400–403 (2001)
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47, 777–780 (1935)
David Bohm, Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, New York 1951), pp 611–623
N. Bohr, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 48, 696–702 (1935)
David Bohm, “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden Variables’, I and II,” Physical Review 85, 166–179, 180–193 (1952)
A clear and sympathetic account of Bohm’s theory and its reception is given by James T. Cushing, Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1994)
J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox,” Physics 1, 195–200 (1964); J. S. Bell, “On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics,” Reviews of Modern Physics 38, 447–452 (1966)
J. S. Bell, “On the Impossible Pilot Wave,” Foundations of Physics 12, 989–999 (1982); reprinted in J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987) p 160
S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, “Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories,” Physical Review Letters 28, 938–941 (1972)
A. Aspect, J. Dalibard and G. Roger, “Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Variable Analyzers,” Physical Review Letters 49, 1804–1807 (1982)
Daniel F. Styer, et al., “Nine formulations of quantum mechanics,” American Journal of Physics 70, 288–297 (2002). Of course, most of these formulations are mathematically equivalent — e.g., Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s wave mechanics. It is no more threatening to have multiple mathematical approaches in quantum mechanics than to have Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics. The baroque efflorescence comes in interpretation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Evans, J. (2007). Introduction: Contexts and Challenges for Quantum Mechanics. In: Quantum Mechanics at the Crossroads. The Frontiers Collection. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32665-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32665-6_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-32663-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32665-6
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)